Tuesday, June 7, 2016

End Of Presidential Primaries?


  • Attorney JT Moran is spending a lot of money in his campaign for a seat on the Nevada Board of Regents. [RJ]
  • The three men implicated in the death of a Lee's Liquor Store employee are expected to plead not guilty. [Fox5Vegas]
  • It appears Hillary Clinton may have the votes to clinch her party's nomination--assuming today's vote in California doesn't change anything. [LasVegasNow]
  • What do you think about the Stanford rape case? [The Atlantic]

46 comments:

  1. I absolutely despise the moran law firm. Although I havn't had any interaction with JT himself, his associates are real pieces of work. Especially that high pitched voice asswipe Justin Smerber.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Join, Justin is one of the biggest douche bag attorneys in Vegas. Smug and arrogant for having accomplished very little in his career.

      Delete
  2. I like JT on a personal level but don't trust him.

    Reporting on Hillary's "win" was irresponsible. There was no reason to do it the day before the CA primary.

    The Stanford case is what it is. Our imperfect justice system delivering imperfect justice. Nobody knows all the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So glad someone finally had the guts to stand up and say "We don't know the facts." And I don't know the facts. I did not listen to the testimony; I did not see the exhibits. I did not hear the testimony of what her level of consciousness nor what his level of consciousness is. Our criminal justice system has become so skewed towards retributive justice, on destructive and not productive outcomes.

      It is easy. Its popular to sound bite this case and say that the sentence was outrageous. And it might be outrageous. Honestly I have seen people destroyed by our criminal justice system for no deterrent or productive purpose but the fact that we need a Shirley Jackson style "Lottery" periodically to keep people scared of the system. But I cannot jump on a bandwagon that I just do not know enough about.

      Delete
  3. OMG, please no more Stanford case. Sick of it. The only reason it is so huge is because the kid is an upper class white athlete. If he was black, there would be zero coverage and the DA would have taken a parking ticket plea deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, so you're saying the sentence would have been even lighter had the defendant been black... that's a first.

      Delete
    2. Yes, of course, in Opposite Land, CA

      Delete
  4. I hear Hillary is going to celebrate with a fresh batch of aborted fetuses pureed in a blender with the blood of innocents, then served in the hollowed out skull of a random Bernie supporter. Bernie, of course, will get his Vince Fostering later, after the media settles down a bit. The historical parallels between Caligula and Hillary will feather a biography some generations from now. Except Caligula didn't do tons of blow like the Hillary reportedly does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recall Bill saying, “Everyone, including my staff, people at the law firm, even friends, knows Hillary is a cokehead but that’s okay. We tolerate Hillary on coke cause without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac....Without her ‘fix’ Hillary’s Hell on Wheels.”

      Who wants this drug fiend in charge of our nuclear arsenal? Vote Trump. Vote Bernie. Vote the pothead from New Mexico. Vote anyone but her!

      Delete
    2. I don't like Hillary, but I'd bet all my money that she hasn't used cocaine even one time in the last 25 years. Probably longer. She's far too power hungry to take a risk like that.

      Delete
    3. The lives of our children are at stake! The lives of our grandchildren, and great grand children!! Better safe than sorry. Don't vote for Hillary. Her well documented mood swings and violent outbursts might not be related to a raging coke habit. Fine. Does it matter? What does matter is that she very well might start WWIII. #Neverhillary; #savethekids!

      Delete
  5. Check out Eglet Prince's new home page photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thats been up there for awhile now..

      Delete
    2. Why isn't Ford in the photo?

      Delete
    3. An important reminder that thigh high boots are always okay for the office. Always. Even in summer. Please. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. Yikes. Unfortunate choice of photo for so many reasons.

      Delete
    5. How come with all that money they still look unhappy?

      Delete
    6. That chick is a freak! (in the good way)

      Delete
    7. Only a few of them have tons of money. And I've never heard a remotely positive thing about working there.

      Delete
    8. Danielle is cool. When I saw that the EP picture was being brought up again, I thought for sure we were in for another round of "Tracy in that off-the-shoulder outfit is sooo yummy".

      Delete
    9. I can't believe you all fell for this. Clearly someone at Eglet's office wants you to go look at the picture and notice that large box over Tracy that says Attorney Referrals. clever girl.

      Delete
    10. Not the first or last time "large box" and TE are used in the same sentence.

      Delete
    11. It looks like an ad for bad, outdated porn - aimed at a middle age, bisexual, swinger demographic. The cocktails make much more sense in this scenario than they do in a law firm ad. Aaron had the good sense to call in sick that day. My guess is that you can find the video in a discount bin some place out on Rancho.

      Delete
    12. I'm a defense attorney, and NOT a hater... Tracy and Danielle are both beautiful women. I like both of their styles of dress. It bothers me that people feel the need to disparage them for no good reason. Everyone around here talks about "lawyer hot" in a creepily obsessive, gossipy way. Both of them are beautiful women. I do not detest them or fear them as my adversaries, and if I was a plaintiff attorney, I wouldn't hate on them either because they have figured out a way to be effective and successful.

      I saw Danielle in court one day arguing a motion (I've never personally had a case with her) but was super impressed by her. Her demeanor, delivery, and presence was great. She seems personable and fun. She dresses well, and seemingly incorporates pieces of her personality into her appearance. I think that is an admirable trait. You can still "be yourself" and an attorney.

      I don't know either of them on a personal level, but they come off as fun, effective, and competent. It's easy to hate on Eglet's success, but I'm guessing there is not one of us out there that would turn down the opportunity to have accomplished what they have. However they have done it, they have done it well.

      I don't agree with some of the approaches they have taken, but they have showmanship, and quite frankly--they appeal to juries. There is nothing wrong with them or what they do, it is society that responds to that approach. They have pretty much figured out a plan, and made it work. As for the comment about "TE's box," grow up, you wish you could get into that Fort Knox.

      So many immature haters here. It's actually pretty embarrassing that our Bar is compromised of cowardly, insecure, shit talking, mediocre fools that talk bad about their professional peers but lack the balls to own their comments. I suspect many of you are 5'7" (or shorter), men, of average intelligence, subpar physique, and nominal life accomplishments. The "boys club" is over... The ladies have shown up and taken over. Times have changed. We don't need to wear petticoats and have the dinner on the table by 5 to appease your antiquated notions of femininity. Maybe you should all step up your game and quit running your Napoleonic mouths on the law blog. You're not going to bring powerful/successful women down by anonymously disparaging their looks on a blog, if they cared about what you thought.. they would have long ago deferred to your inferior wisdoms and appeased your egos.

      Wear those boots, cute dresses, and express yourselves however you see fit ladies. You're doing something right.

      Delete
    13. Ridiculous. It is a ridiculous picture. It's not anti-woman to point it out. You don't need to defend it. I don't mind it because it's part of their shtick. But seriously, you sound completely overwrought with your "appease your antiquated notions of femininity."

      Delete
    14. This pic looks like "best lawyer" naqvi's law firm. Hot hostesses.

      Delete
    15. Hey 9:40pm, I am a male, 6' tall, of slightly above-average intelligence, and above par physique and with some impressive life accomplishments. that being said, I like the eglet picture. it caught me slightly off guard, but hey its their website they can do whatever they want. But then again, I am more open to a new way of looking at attorneys and not the more traditional view i feel many here are trying to compare to. What i really think it is is that there are just many Eglet haters in general and they gonna hate no matter what that law firm does. Jesus himself could work at Eglet and people still will talk smack. haters gonna hate!

      Delete
    16. Holy shit, that picture is awesome! It's almost like the title screen for a lawyer drama like "The Grinder".

      Delete
    17. It's not like that firm is relying on its web site to attract potential clients. That's not how those lawyers attract business. When you get to that level, you've earned the right to be a little bizarre, a little racy, and a little eccentric. That little eyecatcher in the lower left corner of the photo is well-choreographed. It says: "hire us and you might just get a little more than good legal representation!" Bravo

      And it is just a little bit sad that the good Dr. Ford was absent that day. The photo could only have been improved by including him wearing one of his signature neon bow ties with a serious expression on his face.

      Delete
    18. And just like that, Dr. Ford magically appears in the photo!

      Delete
    19. thats funny, they took out the chubby filipino guy and put in Ford. lol

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  6. As someone with visible tattoos, I am happy that they didn't hide their tattoos. Other than that, yeah, weird picture...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many visible tattoos is too many? Just wondering what is the consensus.

      Delete
    2. 1 is still too many... maybe in 15 years or so this will change, but for now, cover them up ladies and gents. Don't put your "individuality" before your client's interest (i.e., have the judge/jury looking at your tattoos instead of listening to you oral argument).

      Delete
    3. I look at tattoos as a sign of mental problems. Yes, this is old school. Really old school, because I also think wanting to change your sex is a sign of mental illness, as is taking on an occupation for which your are unfit, like a 4 ft tall female cop who weighs 100 lb soaking wet.

      Don't worry. My generation will die off soon enough. Then you can tat, tran and feminize the worl

      Delete
  7. On another topic, what about the contrasting public opinions of the Standford judge versus the Trump judge. The former is being pilloried in the press; the latter is being hailed a hero and defender against bully Trump, even though he is an admitted member and supporter of an openly racist group called La Raza and has allowed a bogus case run by a Hillary loving firm get preferential treatment. Imagine if Obama was in federal court case with a judge who belonged to a confederate picnic club?

    Should the Stanford rapist judge be given some latitude? Why?

    Should the Trump University judge be given some latitude? Why?

    What about Hafen?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I saw the Lee's liquor murder case referred to in this story on the news. It's obvious that the DA has made this case priority number one. I think 2 of the defendants have public defenders. My question is this: how does one of these criminals, who is clearly broke enough to want to rob a liquor store, have enough money to hire Josh Tomsheck as his lawyer? What is wrong with this picture?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just cause you rob a place doesnt mean you are broke.

      Delete
    2. Josh Tomsheck could be a court appointment on the case. Most criminal defense attorneys take appointments besides those who do track work. This is how conflicts are often handled. Court appointments can be quite lucrative. The fact that the other two have the PD and or Alternate PD means they need a third from a separate office. Court appoint work is quite lucrative.

      Delete
    3. There are several defendants. The PD had a conflict and it was sent to conflict counsel, i.e. Josh. Only so many attorneys are considered for a conflict counsel role on a case of this magnitude. He's one of them. Nothing fishy, just standard operating procedure.

      Delete
    4. Josh Tomsheck could be a court appointment on the case. Most criminal defense attorneys take appointments besides those who do track work. This is how conflicts are often handled. Court appointments can be quite lucrative. The fact that the other two have the PD and or Alternate PD means they need a third from a separate office.

      Delete
    5. I guess that makes sense. Didn't know how that worked I guess. Just seems crazy to me that someone like that gets a lawyer like that for free. A public defender I understand, but a lawyer like Josh for free? Who pays for that? The county? The state?

      Delete
  9. It's hot as balls out there. Drink lots of water. Make sure you carry extra water in your car.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or work from home.

      Delete